Looking at Sign Language as a Visual and Gestural Shorthand

• Authors: Yishai Tobin
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In this paper I will compare and contrast sign language (used by the deaf community) and spoken language from the point of view of semiotics and linguistics. Both signed and spoken languages can be defined as: a system of systems - revolving around the notion of the linguistic sign - used by human beings to communicate. Both languages also share a common goal: to achieve maximum communication with minimal effort. Where they differ, however, is in the way they produce the meaningful signs to create an efficient system of communication and in the nature of these meaningful signs regarding arbitrariness versus iconicity. Spoken language is based on phonemes that are in opposition to each other which are arbitrary and possess no meaning of their own - but combine into larger meaningful units such as morphemes, words, etc. Thus spoken language is fundamentally auditory and arbitrary (Tobin 1990, 1997, 2007a, b). Sign language is based on units that represent a combination of hand-shapes and gestures which have an orientation and movement to various parts of the body - all of which not only possess meaning - but are iconic rather than arbitrary in nature. Thus sign language is fundamentally visual and iconic (Fuks 2008; Fuks and Tobin 2008). Therefore it is our contention that the traditional concepts of spoken language are neither appropriate nor suitable for sign language and a different approach to analyze sign language will be suggested in this paper.

Keywords

EN

Spoken versus signed languages; auditory versus visual; arbitrary versus iconic

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2008
• Volume: 44
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 103-119

Dates

published

2008-03-01

online

2008-03-28

Contributors

author

Yishai Tobin

• Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva

References

• Aaronson, D. and P. Reiber, (eds.). 1979. Psycholinguistic research: Implications and applications. Hillside, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
• Boyes-Braem, P., 1981. Features of the handshape in American Sign Language. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.]
• Brennan, M., 1990. World formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
• Diver, W., 1979. "Phonology as human behavior". In Aaronson, D. and P. Reiber (eds.). 161-186.
• Fuks, O., 2008. Israeli Sign Language (ISL) according to the Sign-Oriented Approach of the Columbia School and the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.]
• Fuks, O. and Y. Tobin, 2008. "The signs B- and B-bent in Israeli Sign Language according to the theory of Phonology as Human Behavior". International Journal of Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 38. (In press.)
• Jakobson, R and L. Waugh, 1987. The sound shape of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Kantor, R., 1980. "The acquisition of classifiers in American Sign Language". Sign Language Studies 28. 193-208.
• Kooij, E. van der, 2002. Phonological categories in sign language of The Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University].
• Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson, 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Liddell, S. and R. Johnson, 1989. "American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64. 195-277.
• Newport, E.L. and R.P. Meier, 1987. "The acquisition of American Sign Language". In: Slobin, D. (ed.). 881-938.
• Pizzuto, E., E. Cameracnna, S. Corazza and V. Volterra, 1995. "Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language". In Simone, R. (ed.). 237-256.
• Miyares, R., A. Muñoz Alvarado and C. Alvarez Moreno, (eds.). 2007. Actas-1 del X Simposio Internacional de Comunicación Social, Santiago de Cuba 2007. Santiago de Cuba: Centro de Lingüistica Aplicada.
• Sandler, W. and D. Lillo-Martin, 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sangster, R.B., 1982. Roman Jakobson and beyond: Language as a system of signs, the quest of the ulimate invariants in language. Berlin: Mouton
• Simone, R., (ed.). 1995. Iconicity in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Slobin, D., (ed.). 1987. The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. (Vol. 1. The data.) Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Stokoe, W. [1960], 1993. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
• Taub, S.F., 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tobin, Y., 1990. Semiotics and linguistics. London: Longman.
• Tobin, Y., 1994. Invariance, markedness and distinctive feature analysis: A contrastive study of sign systems in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Tobin, Y., 1997. Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical implications and clinical applications. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Tobin, Y., 2007a. "A semiotic view of signed versus spoken language". In Ruiz Miyares et al. (eds.). 428-432.
• Tobin, Y., 2007b. "Arbitrariness versus iconicity in signed and spoken languages". Memorias de la Conferencia Linguistica Internacional 2007. El Instituto de Linguistics y Literatura, La Habana, Cuba. 2007. (CD ROM.)

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-008-0005-z